Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe was on CNN last night reassuring viewers that the Constitution clearly and unequivocally allows for the trial of a former president. In what has become a signature of Tribe’s commentary, he declared any contrary view as “stupid” while engaging in gratuitous personal insults. I have previously written about Tribe’s past personal attacks on those who hold opposing political or legal views. While such attacks thrill many on social media, it should have no place among academics. What is more notable however is how Tribe’s views have changed since the Clinton impeachment when we testified at the impeachment hearing of constitutional experts. While he once questioned whether Bill Clinton could be impeached for a murder unrelated to his official conduct, Tribe has suggested that Trump could be impeached for a tweet alleging criminal misconduct by Barack Obama.
Tribe has been a leading voice declaring clear criminal or impeachable conduct by Trump for years. Harvard professor Laurence Tribe declared Trump’s dictation of a misleading statement about the Trump Tower meeting constituted witness tampering. Tribe previously found compelling evidence of obstruction of justice, criminal election violations, Logan Act violations, extortion and poss
What is striking is Tribe’s recent claim that this is neither a close nor a credible question. As with his past assertions on Trump crimes, Tribe declared that the Constitution is clear and any argument against trying ex-officials is “stupid.” Many scholars who have reached conclusions on the issue, including myself, have stressed that this is indeed a close question for them. There are a variety of opinions but most academics recognize that either interpretation is credible. For example, Professor Cass Sunstein sees strong arguments on both sides and agrees that the answer is not clear. However, he believes that the House cannot impeach a former official but the Senate can probably convict one. Tribe however has been assuring the public that the question is clear and any opposing views can be dismissed as nonsense.
While Tribe raised how my own views have changed from “not long ago” in reference to an article written 21 years ago, they have not changed nearly as much as those of Tribe in that “brief” time. Tribe’s own evolution is rarely discussed beyond conservative legal sites. Tribe previously adopted extremely narrow legal interpretations when asked about the alleged crimes or impeachable offenses of figures like Bill Clinton. However, he has adopted broad interpretations in justifying prosecution or impeachment of Trump from issues like emoluments with the same assurance of clarity and certainty (despite opposing rulings from various courts). He was calling for impeachment from the earliest days of the Trump Administration. That includes impeachable tweets.
In March 2017, Tribe slammed Trump for saying that his campaign and Trump Tower was wiretapped or surveilled by the FBI. It turns out that the FBI in the Obama Administration did in fact conduct surveillance on the campaign after universal refutation by many in the media. Tribe however insisted that Trump could be impeached for the tweet, stating “Using power of WH to falsely accuse [Obama of an] impeachable felony does qualify as an impeachable offense whether via tweet or not.”
So just tweeting an accusation against a political opponent is an impeachable offense since it was done from the White House. Tribe is also quoted in another interview in saying that the campaign finance violation allegations brought against Trump lawyer Michael Cohen are “serious crimes” and, if Trump is not indicted, the Congress can still bring impeachment proceedings against him based on Cohen’s allegations: “The alleged crimes make Trump impeachable. But whether and when the House should proceed to impeach is a complex judgment call.”
That is in sharp contrast to Tribe circa 1998.
Both Tribe and I testified in the Clinton impeachment where Tribe maintained that the Constitution was clear and that Clinton could not be impeached for the felony of perjury. Democrats agreed (as did a later federal judge) that Clinton knowingly committed perjury under oath, but Tribe insisted that impeachment was simply not that broad. In an ironic foreshadowing of Trump’s claim that he could shoot a person on Fifth Avenue, Tribe even questioned whether a president could be impeached for a murder separate from his executive duties. In addition to categorically ruling out the perjury crime as impeachable, Tribe questioned if other crimes like bribery would be impeachable despite its direct reference in the constitutional standard. Tribe said that if Clinton bribed the judge in the Paula Jones case “it would impair, surely, and shed negative light on his integrity, his believability, his virtue, but it would not make [serving as president] impossible” under the Constitution.
Tribe cautioned against unnecessary impeachments and said that Congress should rely on the availability of later criminal prosecutions:
Removing a President, even just impeaching him, paralyzes the country. Removing him decapitates a coordinate branch. And remember that the President’s limited term provides a kind of check, and if the check fails, he can be prosecuted when he leaves. To impeach on the novel basis suggested here when we have impeached only one President in our history, and we have lived to see that action universally condemned; and when we have the wisdom not to impeach Presidents Reagan or Bush over Iran-Contra; and when we have come close to impeaching only one other President for the most wide-ranging abuse of presidential power subversive of the Constitution would lower the bar dramatically, would trivialize a vital check.
I just wanted to say that while I find some of your arguments on impeachment quite unpersuasive you’ve always remained polite and shown a willingness to engage with even random interested parties on the internet when you had time and despite generally agreeing with Tribe politically I find his insulting treatment and ad hominem attacks on you disgusting. Calling Trump a dick seems like an area where we have different norms so I haven’t thought much about it but just wanted to express a note of support for collegial interactions from a relatively liberal guy.
Gee Ma! how could I sound more stupid than repeating what I said to begin with. After all The Party preaches if we repeat something enough it will become the Truth…. u nless the Party changes it.
The Rs once thought that lying in a civil deposition is impeachable (which it is), but engaging is a massive campaign to lie about the results of an election the resulted in a coup attempt is not worthy of any consequences.
Well, that is the standard now.
What happened to Kevin Clinesmith?
http://ethicsalarms.com/2021/01/30/once-again-unethical-sentencing-using-hes-suffered-enough-thats-not-the-message-that-needed-to-be-sent/
That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It is whataboutism, and not even well done.
MollyG,
You said:
to lie about the results of an election the resulted in a coup attempt is not worthy of any consequences.
Michael’s response to you is not a logical fallacy, but rather a logical and relevant response to your statement of what crimes are worthy of consequences. Your response is a dodge.
Lying to the FISC to spy on a presidential campaign in a coordinated effort to influence the outcome of an election was a documented and illegal action.
Expressing a belief one lost an election, with evidence one believes proves that belief, is not lying. Additionally, your allegation that Trump is lying places the burden of proof on you. Trump had/has every right to express a belief the election was stolen. So do his millions of supporters. That is free speech.
If you cannot see the difference between imposing consequences for illegal actions by Clinesmith and the expression of legal, free speech by Trump, then you are woefully unarmed for this legal blog.
According to you, who lied to the FISC to spy on a presidential campaign in a coordinated effort to influence the outcome of an election?
So the attorney that falsified a document to defraud the FISA court, that enabled the weaponization of federal agencies to pursue a soft coup against a duly elected President, got no jail time? WTF!? Did the judge really go easy on him because he suffered a job loss and public scrutiny in the media?
BTW: Why didn’t Biden just redirect the southern border wall construction to the green zone construction underway in D. C.?
Apparently Democrats believe “Walls work” afterall. Only when they are put in place to protect themselves, of course.
Go to hell Speaker Pelosi. Go straight to hell.
Perhaps we need to relocate the Capitol to our southern border.
The weaponization of federal agencies to undermine the President was much more dangerous to our institutions than any riot from the streets of Minneapolis to the interior of the Capitol?
Yes
I absolutely agree that Tribe’s name-calling is utterly disgraceful, BUT until Turley acknowledges the undeniable vitriol and name calling of Hannity, Carlson, Levin, and Pirro, among others, on his network Fox News, he has NO moral standing to point the finger at Tribe. Turley is on Trump TV’s payroll, and thus he will not speak ill of his colleagues no matter what. His hypocrisy is blatant and discredits him. In the fullness of time, I promise you that Turley will live to regret his silence in the face of the same name calling of his Fox colleagues which he condemns from Tribe. This stain on his character will not be forgotten nor forgiven.
“Stain on his character”….omg….just go away you trainwreck of a Maddow watching freak…..
Again with the name calling…
You “lyin’ dog face”….”wanna take it out back?”….”you’re full of sh*t”….Apparently you have not hear YOUR president Joe Biden attack not just journalists, but VOTERS who dare to ask him a legit question with these very attacks? Have you NOT heard the “name calling” and outright lies that comes out of Joe Biden’s mouth? Apparently not…because the Fake Newz doesn’t “report” any of THAT kind of newz.
Go back to watching Maddow….
“Turley is on Trump TV’s payroll.”
Jeffrey, I disagree profoundly with Professor Tribe’s views and find his messaging appalling, but I have little doubt about his sincerity and even less doubt about Professor Turley’s sincerity.
I wouldn’t insult Professor Tribe on his own blog, even if I thought he was insincere. What gives with you trolls on this blog?
Indeed! I’m becoming weary of the insults. I’m very appreciative of the opportunity to be apprised of the issues that Professor Turley brings to us. And, while reasonable men and women can disagree, insults directed to our host, Professor Turley, are ill considered and offensive.
Diogenes, I don’t abide hypocrites. Until Turley begins criticizing Fox News’ personalities for their name-calling, he remains two-faced. He will have to live with the disgrace of working for the Murdoch’s long after he leaves their employ. Turley cannot defend the despicable name calling of Trump TV’s prime time line-up which accounts for his complete silence. But one day he will be confronted by an interviewer who will demand an explanation about his association with Fox News and his acquiescence in their hate-filled rhetoric. His day of reckoning is coming, and he knows it.
“Until Turley begins criticizing Fox News’ personalities for their name-calling”,
Another false equivalency, Jeffrey. Professor Turley wasnt lamenting name-calling, per se. Rather, he specifically mentioned Name-calling “should have no place among academics”. Last time I checked, opinion talk show hosts would not be considered academics.
Did you even read the article, or did you just come loaded for bear looking to nitpick?
Turley: “I have previously written about Tribe’s past personal attacks on those who hold opposing political or legal views. While such attacks thrill many on social media, it should have no place among academics”.
Brdcstr, while I generally make it a rule not to reply to posters who hide behind a pseudonym, I’ll make an exception in your case. I have a much higher estimation of Turley than you, for I do not suppose, as you do, that he would not did approve of name calling by anyone- except academics! While I agree generally with Turley’s legal opinions, I do fault him for legitimizing the rampant name calling of the prime time hosts of Trump TV by appearing on their programs and sparing them the criticism he rightly levels at Fox News’ media competitors. I have no doubt Turley would think it demeaning and unacceptable to work for a broadcaster such as Infowars. While not as flagrant, Fox News promulgates lies and false narratives and, therefore, belongs in the same category. He doesn’t think so. Time will tell whether he made a wise decision to lend his good name to validate Trump TV.
Thank you.
“His hypocrisy is blatant”
#irony
Again jeffy with your BS. All the shrill hate filled and violent inciting vomit spewed out in the last 5 years by the social fascist party you worship makes your hypocrisy front and center and cancels out your false morality pray. Nice try you brownshirt.
Oh shut up.
“I absolutely agree that Tribe’s name-calling is utterly disgraceful, BUT until Turley…”
Cue the whataboutusm from an unserious thinker.
Tribe was divorced after 44 years of marriage, which is rather odd. His intellect seems to be slipping to the unfortunate place that he mistakes any sort of attention as admiration. It’s kind of sad, really, as he was at one time a respected constitutional scholar. But some people just don’t recognize when it’s time to retire and step out of the limelight, and end up making fools of themselves and tarnishing their legacies.
Professor Turley, it’s unfortunate Professor Tribe didn’t afford you the professional courtesy you’ve spent your entire life achieving. You have my fullest sympathy.
As a lone foot soldier in the cause of free speech, I expect to take an arrow from the trolls now and then. At this point, I can honestly claim to be fully ventilated. I also suffer the occasional friendly fire–which can be more painful than troll venom–but that hardly compares to being publicly insulted by an esteemed colleague.
Too many, like Professor Tribe, are not rising to the occasion. For what it’s worth, I hold you in the highest regard.
I could not have said it better than Diogenes did. Tribe’s insults were misdirected and disconcerting. I, too, hold Professor Turley in high regard. I’m learning many legal nuances that I did not learn in law school. High praise for Professor Turley.
🙂
Back off Larry the Loon. He’s got a brain tumor.
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/laurence_tribe_leaves_white_house_job_cites_symptoms_of_brain_tumor
Speaking of brain tumors and changes in personalities…John McCain had a brain tumor/cancer. Recall how nasty he was to his own VP former running mate? Recall how he relished his “thumbs down” to screw his own party and Trump? Recall how arrogantly he planned his own funeral fit for a president..which he was not!…even asking not one, but two former presidents to eulogize him? So big and bipartisan of him, right? Wrong. He was a stinker of the first order. He was a career senator and maneuvered his own funeral to include adulation and a funeral fit for a head of state when he was not Of course it was the brain cancer making him more nasty than his usual self. Of course. RIP McStain.
That was 10 years ago.
Okay someone has to state the obvious. Lawrence Tribe is a darling of the left. When he was considered and passed over for a supreme court justice role (80’s or 90’s) he has since become mostly a political hack. And his former solid legal reasoning has been replaced with partisan logic. This is a perfect example of “motivated reasoning” where instead of being a sober legal scholar and describing both sides and pros and cons in an intelligent, articulate manner, he is speaking soundbites on MSNBC to a very partisan audience. Some people have become jerks on Twitter as the social media has caused them to act differently than they do in person. Robert Reich is a perfect example of this too – he posts things that are extremely partisan and every obvious extreme position one could take, he posts on Twitter. He is obviously a very intelligent person given his background, but on twitter he basically acts like an a**ho*e. The sad thing with our current media is that for most people who will watch CNN or MSNBC – and this same crowd is reading the WaPo, the NYT, The Atlantic, New Yorker, etc… they will only hear ONE side of these discussions. And they will hear that side espouses by every guest on tv, every article they read. I’m not taking a political partisan stance here….the issue is that there’s no interest in understanding both sides of the issue and really hearing a strong argument on the opposite side. At best they will hear a weak straw man argument. and that’s at best…b/c at worst they won’t hear anything contrary and basically have no concept that other legal scholars think the impeachment is unconstitutional.